Mayflower District Court
#rochonto3-et-al-v-singhski-et-al
This is the start of #rochonto3-et-al-v-singhski-et-al channel.
krabz 2025-02-02 05:38 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 02:55 p.m.
krabz used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 05:39 p.m. @krabz has added @impactiii to the case channel.
Case Modified
krabz used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 05:39 p.m. @krabz has added @rochonto3 to the case channel.
Case Modified
impactiii 2025-02-02 05:40 p.m.@Awesome
251.61 KB
impactiii 2025-02-02 05:40 p.m.
Emergency Motion needs approval within 24 hrs; Plaintiffs already being rounded up and arrested
impactiii 2025-02-02 06:11 p.m.
Also on meet-and-confer… that would not be practical at this stage(edited)
impactiiiAlso on meet-and-confer… that would not be practical at this stage(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-02 06:18 p.m.MINUTE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court, finding that swift, decisive action is quintessential to preserve the status quo, see, e.g. , Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters , 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974), and upon weighing all four factors -- namely, the (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of relief, (3) balance of equities, and (4) public interest -- set forth in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and upon concluding, at least at this stage, that all such factors weigh squarely in favor of injunctive relief, it is ORDERED that: (1) Defendants and their employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents be, and they hereby are, forthwith RESTRAINED from enforcing, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to Memo. No. 2025-1A14-0201-01, pending further order of the Court, so that a hearing, at a date and time convenient to the Court and the parties, may be held; (2) Defendants shall provide written notice of this Order to all of their employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents by, at the latest, Monday, February 3, 2025 at 6:15 p.m. , 1 year ago ; and (3) the Court reserves its decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
/s/ AwesomePIaysMayflower District JudgeAwesome 2025-02-02 06:18 p.m.
cc:@impactiii /@Department of Justice
Awesome used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 06:19 p.m. @Awesome has added @singhski to the case channel.
Case Modified
Singhski 2025-02-02 06:21 p.m.
Thank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
impactiii 2025-02-02 06:22 p.m.
The fourth branch of government coming in hard and fast
SinghskiThank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
Singhski 2025-02-02 06:23 p.m.
Disclaimer: the Constitution demands this.
SinghskiThank you. We will be filing a motion to Vacate the TRO tomorrow on the basis that my directives cannot be enjoined by the judiciary.
Awesome 2025-02-02 06:29 p.m.
I mean, I'll hear you out, but I don't see much merit in an argument that AG Directives aren't subject to judicial review, no matter how supposedly draconian or unjust; there's three co-equal branches.
AwesomeI mean, I'll hear you out, but I don't see much merit in an argument that AG Directives aren't subject to judicial review, no matter how supposedly draconian or unjust; there's thr...
Singhski 2025-02-03 02:50 a.m.
You'll be surprised that you've actually violated the spirit of separation of powers as defined by our cases.
Singhski 2025-02-03 08:41 a.m.
Cc: @impactiii , @Awesome
impactiii 2025-02-03 08:48 a.m.
I don’t think I need to respond to that, quite honestly. Much of the case law actually supports the Plaintiffs’ position
impactiiiI don’t think I need to respond to that, quite honestly. Much of the case law actually supports the Plaintiffs’ position
impactiii 2025-02-03 09:33 a.m.
But if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:15 a.m.
"The Legislature may , by Law, strike any directive or order if they feel it is unjust or inconsistent with this Constitution." Mayfl. Const. Art IV, §3.
I would find it hard to believe that the Framers intended to limit the check on the formidable executive power of Attorney General memorandums to solely the hands of one branch—the Legislature. The key concept is behind our constitutional order is that each branch checks the other... not one to the other.
The word “may” is an expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, and ordinarily implies some degree of discretion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/may
I would find it hard to believe that the Framers intended to limit the check on the formidable executive power of Attorney General memorandums to solely the hands of one branch—the Legislature. The key concept is behind our constitutional order is that each branch checks the other... not one to the other.
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:17 a.m.
If they allow one to have a check, then just in that nature of how our government must function (separation of powers), then all must have a say
impactiii"The Legislature may , by Law, strike any directive or order if they feel it is unjust or inconsistent with this Constitution." Mayfl. Const. Art IV, §3. The word “may” is an ...
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:41 a.m.
Does the use of "may" not prove the point that the Founders intended that only the Legislature be able to strike down the Attorney General's directive? By making this authority discretionary, the Constitution ensures that no individual can compel the Legislature to act through a writ of mandamus—nor can the courts issue one. Does this not entirely cast away the courts from touching the AG's directives?
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:42 a.m.
They may be able to, sure
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:42 a.m.
If anything, it’s just another tool in their toolbox
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:43 a.m.
Not taking the hammer away from the judiciary
impactiiiNot taking the hammer away from the judiciary
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:48 a.m.
By conferring this power solely upon the Legislature, the Constitution implicitly denies it to the judiciary.
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:49 a.m.
The courts cannot assume an authority that the Framers chose not to place in their hands, I don't believe they have ever operated that way.
SinghskiBy conferring this power solely upon the Legislature, the Constitution implicitly denies it to the judiciary.
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:50 a.m.
That's expressio unius
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:50 a.m.
I believe I touched on this in my motion, but, usually expressio unius isn't applied to reading the constitution when it limits authority, but wholly appropriate to use when it grants authority
impactiiiIf they allow one to have a check, then just in that nature of how our government must function (separation of powers), then all must have a say
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:51 a.m.
I don't understand why it wasn't the intention of the Founders to only have one branch check the other in this context?
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
Because we have three co-equal branches
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
sic AwesomePlayz
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
There are numerous instances where only one branch checks the other
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:52 a.m.
One can easily counter that entire argument with the simple reading that the Constitution vests all judicial power in the courts
impactiiiBut if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:53 a.m.
And then back to this
impactiiiBut if that will not suffice: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
Chief Justice Marshall’s statement refers to the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the law in cases properly before it, not in usurping powers expressly assigned to another branch.
SinghskiThere are numerous instances where only one branch checks the other
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
Primarily. Not entirely
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:54 a.m.
The judiciary could still review a challenge to a veto override to make sure that the required majority voted in favor, for example
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:55 a.m.
On a challenge to the enactment of a law that was first vetoed
impactiiiThe judiciary could still review a challenge to a veto override to make sure that the required majority voted in favor, for example
Singhski 2025-02-03 10:57 a.m.
What about judicial involvement in impeachments?
impactiii 2025-02-03 10:58 a.m.
Well if we’re talking about federal impeachments, the operative word is “shall” and then “have the sole power.” The word here is “may.” You’re welcome
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
The judiciary can only get involved in impeachments if the constitutional process wasn’t followed
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
I read a case about this. Forget what the name is
impactiiiThe judiciary can only get involved in impeachments if the constitutional process wasn’t followed
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:00 a.m.
Like if the House never exhibited Articles and the Senate did a trial
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:01 a.m.
So there’s still a check
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:22 a.m.@impactiii Our cases support the general notion that discretionary functions of the executive are nonjusticiable, and to place a check on the executive, the legislature was utilized.(edited)
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:25 a.m.
So the Founders were actually wise in not implicating the judiciary, because had they done that, the political question doctrine would effectively be a weak acid.
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:32 a.m.
Discretionary function, i.e issuing of directives and orders by the AG
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:34 a.m.
“But where the executive's discretionary functions are at issue, interference from the judicial branch is inappropriate. ” McMellon v. U.S ., 387 F.3d 329, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2004). From what I've read the discretionary function exception usually applies to areas involving policy judgment, such as state security—which this directive was aimed at—foreign relations or similar matters.
Singhski“But where the executive's discretionary functions are at issue, interference from the judicial branch is inappropriate. ” McMellon v. U.S ., 387 F.3d 329, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2004)....
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:41 a.m.
But you're applying a tort immunity case under the FTCA's liability standards to a state constitutional challenge
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:41 a.m.
Not to mention that's out-of-circuit precedent, by all technicality
impactiiiBut you're applying a tort immunity case under the FTCA's liability standards to a state constitutional challenge
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:42 a.m.
I still believe the Founders considered discretionary decisions taken by the executive nonjusticiable, otherwise they wouldn't have utilized the legislature as the check(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:42 a.m.
Do you believe the judiciary has any power at all to review AG directives?
impactiiiDo you believe the judiciary has any power at all to review AG directives?
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:47 a.m.
What I believe is irrelevant; what matters is what the Constitution actually says. And the Constitution clearly states that the judiciary has no authority to review Attorney General directives, based on the principle of expressio unius . As you noted earlier, "The judiciary can only intervene in impeachments if the constitutional process hasn't been followed." There are many instances where judicial involvement occurs when the Constitution is violated in context of the political branch. However, in this case, it is the legislature, not the judiciary, that must act if there is a constitutional violation.
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:49 a.m.
There has to be a reason why the Founders explicitly gave this authority to the legislature, but not the judiciary, unless you think our Founders wrote the Constitution without careful thought or purpose?
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
And that reason is because the executive's discretionary functions must be nonjusticiable
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
I don't feel compelled to answer that. That's just ridiculous
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
Lol
SinghskiThere has to be a reason why the Founders explicitly gave this authority to the legislature, but not the judiciary, unless you think our Founders wrote the Constitution without car...
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
Well I mean, what's the reasoning behind this?
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:50 a.m.
easiest way to answer that is "they made a mistake"
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
Clearly, Article X authority ends once the AG signs a memorandum
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
I think we have it now
impactiii 2025-02-03 11:54 a.m.
Thank you for enlightening all of us
impactiiiClearly, Article X authority ends once the AG signs a memorandum
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:57 a.m.
It is without conclusion, as it was never in existence.
Singhski 2025-02-03 11:57 a.m.
UserMessage could not be loaded.
impactiii 2025-02-03 05:42 p.m.
impactiii 2025-02-03 07:58 p.m.PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
@Awesome @singhski
[Exhibit 1](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEVreUmJFnoXslR0y9UiKMjMeJoDRdA3/view?usp=sharing)
[Exhibit 2](https://drive.google.com/file/d/17vUXPqbJg-mxM8a9QtvP4UdlYiDtPj0c/view?usp=sharing)
[Exhibit 3](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Huw7e7uoYuBg2GJSaJC4QDu-igzd7LWO/view?usp=sharing)
927.52 KB
impactiiiimpactiii 2025-02-03 07:58 p.m.AFFIDAVIT OF SADOIMPACTO
AwesomeAwesome 2025-02-04 12:23 a.m.@singhski Can you certify whether you have provided “written notice of this Order to all of [your] employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents”?
Awesomeimpactiii 2025-02-04 12:42 a.m.
This message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply with his duty to act under the Court’s order.
AwesomeSinghski 2025-02-04 04:32 a.m.
No.
SinghskiNo.
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:13 a.m.
.
Awesome.
Singhski 2025-02-04 05:14 a.m.
ok I have now
Singhskiok I have now
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:14 a.m.
Alright.
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:17 a.m.
Do the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief?
cc:@singhski @impactiii
AwesomeDo the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief? cc: @singhski @impactiii (edited)
impactiii 2025-02-04 11:28 a.m.
No
AwesomeDo the Plaintiffs or the State have any objections to @Brenda filing an amicus curiae brief? cc: @singhski @impactiii (edited)
Awesome 2025-02-04 04:46 p.m.@singhski ?
impactiiiThis message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply wi...
impactiii 2025-02-04 04:55 p.m.
Renewed notice
impactiiiRenewed notice
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:13 p.m.
As far as I’m aware, he complied with the Court’s Order.
AwesomeAs far as I’m aware, he complied with the Court’s Order.
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:13 p.m.
10 hours later
impactiii10 hours later
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:24 p.m.
I’m not going to sua sponte enter sanctions based off of a one-off minor delay.(edited)
AwesomeI’m not going to sua sponte enter sanctions based off of a one-off minor delay.(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:26 p.m.
He waited 10 hours to notify his agents of the enjoinment of the order. That's not a minor delay. And he knows better. Can we get him to sign on affidavit on how many people were arrested before he notified his officers and finally complied with this Court's order?
impactiii 2025-02-04 05:26 p.m.
I can put it into a motion
impactiiiHe waited 10 hours to notify his agents of the enjoinment of the order. That's not a minor delay. And he knows better. Can we get him to sign on affidavit on how many people were a...
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:35 p.m.
Apologies, I meant I’m not going to sua sponte do so; if you wish to move for sanctions, you’re free to.(edited)
AwesomeApologies, I meant I’m not going to sua sponte do so; if you wish to move for sanctions, you’re free to.(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-04 06:50 p.m.
Will be filed. TY
impactiiiThis message constitutes notice of the Plaintiffs’ intent to move for sanctions—if the Court does not automatically impose them—should the Attorney General have failed to comply wi...
impactiii 2025-02-04 11:24 p.m.PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS
1
CC:@Awesome @singhski
171.89 KB
1
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-02-05 08:12 a.m.
where is the trello card for this
shah_khaled ᴘᴄwhere is the trello card for this
impactiii 2025-02-05 08:18 a.m.
Website
Singhski 2025-02-05 05:12 p.m.@Awesome will reply to everything earliest tomorrow I haven’t got any time
Awesome 2025-02-05 11:11 p.m.MINUTE ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY BRENDAPOPPLEWELL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
Courts have wide latitude to allow — or, conversely, to not allow — a non-party’s participation as amicus curiae.See, e.g. , United States v. Michigan , 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiffs have consented to Ms BrendaPopplewell’s Motion, and the State has failed to timely object. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: (1) Ms BrendaPopplewell’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief be, and it hereby is, GRANTED ; and (2) Ms BrendaPopplewell is permitted to file, on or before Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 2:00 a.m. , 1 year ago , an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.
Courts have wide latitude to allow — or, conversely, to not allow — a non-party’s participation as amicus curiae.
/s/ AwesomePIaysMayflower District Judgecc:@Brenda /@impactiii @rochonto3 /@singhski
Awesomeimpactiii 2025-02-05 11:27 p.m.
What about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
impactiiiWhat about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
Awesome 2025-02-05 11:34 p.m.
I’m waiting on the State’s response.
SinghskiCc: @impactiii , @Awesome
Singhski 2025-02-06 02:20 p.m.@Awesome did you rule on this?
Singhskiimpactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
I think he’s waiting to do everything all at once
UserMessage could not be loaded.
impactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
impactiii 2025-02-06 02:52 p.m.
@awesomeplayz
SinghskiAwesome 2025-02-06 07:52 p.m.
I’m writing it.
Awesome 2025-02-06 07:59 p.m.
Well, I started writing it yesterday, as I was waiting on Brenda’s amicus brief.
Awesome 2025-02-07 03:49 a.m.@singhski When can the Court anticipate the State’s response?
impactiiiWhat about the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Sanctions?
Awesome 2025-02-07 03:50 a.m.
To these.*
AwesomeTo these.*
impactiii 2025-02-07 01:51 p.m.
Set a deadline
impactiii 2025-02-07 01:51 p.m.
EOD Sunday would be fair
AwesomeTo these.*
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
I'm done
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
Waiting
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:52 a.m.
Ngl
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:53 a.m.@singhski I'm done
impactiii 2025-02-08 12:53 a.m.
Buddy
AwesomeSinghski 2025-02-08 04:37 a.m.
Today your honor.
SinghskiToday your honor.
Awesome 2025-02-08 05:36 a.m.
Alright. Let me know once it's in.
AwesomeAlright. Let me know once it's in.
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
Can he have another 48 hours to respond I feel like we didn't give him enough time icl abt ts
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
There's not much he can even say @Awesome
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:56 p.m.
Lol
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:57 p.m.@singhski Brooooooooooo The Constitution Commands it
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:57 p.m.
It Commands it
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:58 p.m.
We have 3 briefs and then 1 airball
impactiii 2025-02-08 02:59 p.m.
3 briefs from 2 different people
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
It commands it
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.The U.S. Supreme Court decides if laws made in the United States violate the Constitution or not. It’s called judicial review and it’s a power that was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court itself – thanks to a landmark case in 1803, Marbury v. Madison.
Untold is a free collection of short, compelling, history videos and animations ... 
Untold is a free collection of short, compelling, history videos and animations ...
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
ts pmo icl
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
Singhski 2025-02-08 03:00 p.m.
yes give me another 48
Singhskiyes give me another 48
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:08 p.m.
Alright, you can have another 48, but it needs to be in by then; I won’t entertain any further delays.
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
Lmfao
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
I was joking about the extra 48
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
.
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:10 p.m.
He can have until Sunday at the latest
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
I'm not starting my week writing a reply brief
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
Weekend is valuable time
AwesomeAlright, you can have another 48, but it needs to be in by then; I won’t entertain any further delays.
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
You can have another ~24 hours*.(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
Sunday by 5:00 PM EST
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
2/8/2025 5:00 PM EST
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:11 p.m.
2/9*
AwesomeYou can have another ~24 hours*.(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-08 03:13 p.m.Sunday, February 9, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. , 1 year ago .
impactiiiAwesome 2025-02-08 03:14 p.m.
In the future, maybe make it a smidge clearer that it’s a joke.You literally @‘d me.
impactiii 2025-02-08 03:20 p.m.
Literally
Singhski 2025-02-08 04:14 p.m.@Awesome no but I wasn’t joking because my IRL workload has doubled this past week
Singhski 2025-02-09 11:09 a.m.@Awesome Please extend this to Monday
impactiii 2025-02-09 11:59 a.m.
No
impactiii 2025-02-09 12:00 p.m.
Buddy
Awesome 2025-02-09 12:13 p.m.
You've had five (5) days, notwithstanding Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9), which states, in relevant part, that "[a] party may only respond once to a pretrial motion if they wish to respond at all[,] [which] must be filed within forty-eight (48) hours of the motion being made."
Awesome 2025-02-09 12:14 p.m.
I, of course, get people have IRL stuff, but, like, why wasn't this raised earlier..?
AwesomeI, of course, get people have IRL stuff, but, like, why wasn't this raised earlier..?
Awesome 2025-02-09 02:09 p.m.
Like, if you had responded to one of the pending motions, I’d be more than willing to give you the requested extension.
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:15 p.m.@Awesome because I'm not home all day today
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:15 p.m.
I don't know if I'll be able to finish when I'm back, but will definetly be done and ready to send on Monday(edited)
SinghskiAwesome 2025-02-09 02:17 p.m.
As a one-time courtesy, I’ll grant you the extension, but another won’t be granted.
AwesomeAs a one-time courtesy, I’ll grant you the extension, but another won’t be granted.
Singhski 2025-02-09 02:17 p.m.
Thank you.
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:30 p.m.@Awesome Today by 5:00 PM EST
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:32 p.m.
Unless the AG is literally working in the African cobalt mines with no electricity I see no reason why he can’t spare 30 minutes to write 3-5 pages using ChatGPT or some other kind of AI tool across the last 6 days
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:33 p.m.
I was fine with 2 days but we all have a “IRL workload” to tend to not to mention I was handling my irl workload while dealing with food poisoning this weekend
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:33 p.m.
And I’m still locked in on this Lego court, with due respect
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:34 p.m. 
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:40 p.m.@Awesome SIR!!
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:40 p.m.
but everything will be in by 5
UserMessage could not be loaded.
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:41 p.m.
SIR!!!! @Awesome
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:41 p.m.
Stop snitching or you'll find out real hood...
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:42 p.m.
Singhski 2025-02-10 01:42 p.m.
Stop playing.
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:42 p.m.
I won’t tolerate this. I know many black folk, including @krm and @Brenda .
impactiii 2025-02-10 01:43 p.m.
You better stand back and stand by
UserMessage could not be loaded.
Awesome 2025-02-10 03:01 p.m.
Can we, like, not use racial slurs in a case chat?
Awesome 2025-02-10 03:02 p.m.
Apologies, I only just woke up.
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.@Awesome
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
It’s past 5
impactiii 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
1 hour past 5
impactiii 2025-02-10 07:16 p.m.@Awesome It is past 5 in MST now as well so unless Mr. Singhski lives in California he is late!!!!!! Again!!!!!!!
impactiii 2025-02-10 08:43 p.m.@Awesome
impactiii 2025-02-10 11:01 p.m.@Awesome your HONOR.
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:25 a.m.@Awesome YOUR HONOR!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:26 a.m.
Can you, like, not ping me five times?
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:27 a.m.
I just got home.
AwesomeCan you, like, not ping me five times?
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:27 a.m.
Apologies I was geeked. When can we expect a ruling since there’s no opposition.
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:35 a.m.@singhski What’s going on?
Awesomeimpactiii 2025-02-11 01:35 a.m.
This, sir.
Awesome 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
I’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
AwesomeI’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
Can I move for a second contempt on use of the n-word?
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:36 a.m.
I had numerous people DM me that they were absolutely disgusted.
AwesomeI’m asking him why he hasn’t responded.
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
In his own words: “[he] don’t care n*gga”
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
This can’t be more clear, your Honor
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:41 a.m.
We gave him what… 5 days to respond? Going on 6?
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:42 a.m.
When has anyone ever been granted that much time to file a response to one brief?
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:45 a.m.@Awesome Also, your Honor, the Plaintiffs are stating their intent to request an entry of default
impactiii 2025-02-11 01:46 a.m.
No answer has been made on the complaint
impactiiiAwesome 2025-02-11 02:25 a.m.
I’ll need that in writing, pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37(f) (“A default judgment may be entered against the State of Mayflower (including any political subdivisions thereof), its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court .”).
impactiiiI had numerous people DM me that they were absolutely disgusted.
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:27 a.m.
I’ll incorporate it into your motion for sanctions.
impactiiiThis can’t be more clear, your Honor
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:29 a.m.
I’m nonetheless waiting for the State to respond.(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:33 p.m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZdsRR_z4Qj5a9oGUp2bF5scLOJwxK1ix/view?usp=sharing
cc:@rochonto3 @impactiii /@singhski @Department of Justice
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:34 p.m.
Apologies for the delay.
Awesomehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZdsRR_z4Qj5a9oGUp2bF5scLOJwxK1ix/view?usp=sharing cc: @rochonto3 @impactiii / @singhski <@&127957678172012967...
Awesome 2025-02-11 02:45 p.m.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion and Order attached hereto, the Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Court's TRO is DENIED .
impactiii 2025-02-11 03:33 p.m.
Awaiting ruling
Deleted User 2025-02-11 07:19 p.m. 
AwesomeAwesome 2025-02-12 03:57 a.m.@singhski
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:00 a.m.
You can enter default
SinghskiYou can enter default
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:00 a.m.
Well, I have a pending motion for sanctions (contempt), and I kinda need a response on that front.(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:02 a.m.
Even if it’s submitted via text over Discord.(edited)
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:03 a.m.
I mean we're not enforcing the memorandum anymore
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:03 a.m.
and the number of arrests made during my noncompliance was 0(edited)
Singhskiand the number of arrests made during my noncompliance was 0(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:04 a.m.
I did check this, and you appear to be correct, but they also moved for sanctions for disregard for decorum (the use of a racial slur).
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:04 a.m.
As much as I don’t want to hold counsel in contempt, you’re making it tricky for me.
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:05 a.m.
Yeah, that's on me.
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:05 a.m.
It was uncalled for.
SinghskiIt was uncalled for.
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:10 a.m.
Ok, I’ll give you a choice between (1) a nominal fine of $1,500 or (2) an apology, delivered to the Court and the Plaintiffs.
AwesomeOk, I’ll give you a choice between (1) a nominal fine of $1,500 or (2) an apology, delivered to the Court and the Plaintiffs.
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:11 a.m.
I'll apologise
SinghskiI'll apologise
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:14 a.m.
When can the Court and the Plaintiffs expect that apology to be made?(edited)
AwesomeWhen can the Court and the Plaintiffs expect that apology to be made?(edited)
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:15 a.m.
Will you accept it as a message?
SinghskiWill you accept it as a message?
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:16 a.m.
Yes, as long as it’s not <20 words.
Singhski 2025-02-12 04:20 a.m.
Cc: @impactiii , @Awesome
I am here and now tendering the most sincere apologies for the inappropriate and obscene words spoken on that day, 10th February 2025, in court proceedings. I realize that what I did was a very grievous offense by using a racial slur. I understand thoroughly that such language is not merely disrespectful but, in any context, especially a place of justice, harmful and unacceptable.
My words do not truly exemplify my character or the respect I hold for this Court, the legal system, the plaintiffs, and all others involved in these proceedings, but they were uttered in a moment of complete inappropriateness and lapse of judgment. I fully accept the whole responsibility for my actions. I realize that my behavior undermines the dignity of the Court and the integrity of its processes and hurts the plaintiffs and more persons involved. I'm genuinely sorry for that.
I know quite well that words of the sort can have a serious impact on individual as well as communities; I keep appreciating the necessity of a respectful and just environment. I commit myself to ensuring that such behavior is never repeated and amending it where possible.(edited)
I am here and now tendering the most sincere apologies for the inappropriate and obscene words spoken on that day, 10th February 2025, in court proceedings. I realize that what I did was a very grievous offense by using a racial slur. I understand thoroughly that such language is not merely disrespectful but, in any context, especially a place of justice, harmful and unacceptable.
My words do not truly exemplify my character or the respect I hold for this Court, the legal system, the plaintiffs, and all others involved in these proceedings, but they were uttered in a moment of complete inappropriateness and lapse of judgment. I fully accept the whole responsibility for my actions. I realize that my behavior undermines the dignity of the Court and the integrity of its processes and hurts the plaintiffs and more persons involved. I'm genuinely sorry for that.
I know quite well that words of the sort can have a serious impact on individual as well as communities; I keep appreciating the necessity of a respectful and just environment. I commit myself to ensuring that such behavior is never repeated and amending it where possible.(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-12 04:35 a.m.MINUTE ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO HOLD DEFENDANT SINGHSKI IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions and to Hold Defendant Singhski in Civil Contempt, IT IS HEREBY:
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be, and it hereby is, GRANTED IN PART , insofar as (i) sanctioning Defendant Singhski for his raucous conduct and (ii) requiring Defendants to submit an affidavit representing and detailing, to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, the number of arrests made during the period between the continued enforcement of the Memorandum after the Court’s TRO was issued and the notice of the Court’s TRO provided to Defendants’ employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents, and DENIED IN PART , insofar as holding Defendant Singhski in civil contempt and precluding him from contesting the continued enforcement of the Memorandum; and IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Defendants are to submit an affidavit, no later than Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. , 1 year ago , representing and detailing, to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, the number of arrests made during the period between the continued enforcement of the Memorandum after the Court’s TRO was issued and the notice of the Court’s TRO provided to Defendants’ employees, contractors, subcontractors, officers, and agents.
/s/ AwesomePIaysMayflower District Judgecc:@impactiii @rochonto3 /@singhski
SinghskiYou can enter default
impactiii 2025-02-12 08:50 a.m.
Consent judgement?
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:45 a.m.@Awesome Will you grant summary judgment
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
The Defendant does not contest
impactiiiThe Defendant does not contest
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
We don't contest
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
Among our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
impactiiiAmong our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:46 a.m.
And a declaratory judgment on that as well
impactiiiAmong our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:51 a.m.
From my office or from me?
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:52 a.m.
i.e from the Attorney General or Singhski?
SinghskiFrom my office or from me?
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:53 a.m.
No from Judge AwesomePIays
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:54 a.m.
not what I mean
Singhski 2025-02-12 09:54 a.m.
arrest memorandums from my post or me?
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:55 a.m.
Like the entire DOJ
impactiii 2025-02-12 09:55 a.m.
Naturally
impactiiiAmong our “other relief” we want a permanent injunction on similar “arrest memorandums”
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:24 a.m.
I’m wary, to put it mildly, of issuing an injunction as broad as the one you appear to be requesting.
AwesomeI’m wary, to put it mildly, of issuing an injunction as broad as the one you appear to be requesting.
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:27 a.m.
When would an arrest memorandum ever be constitutional
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
Also that whole statute that punishes non-compliance with memorandums by jail time(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
I’m not aware of any federal equivalent or other-state equivalent
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:28 a.m.
And the one that allows the AG to imprison people based on the “list”(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:29 a.m.
I’d be inclined to agree, but the Constitution explicitly gives the Legislature the right to fix “[t]he punishment for not following the directives or orders [of the Attorney General].”
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
And if you were to argue supremacy, that’s a whole other ball-game.
AwesomeAnd if you were to argue supremacy, that’s a whole other ball-game.
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
I would but
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:30 a.m.
Maybe another time
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:31 a.m.
Obviously violative of the guarantee clause that requires separation of powers in all states
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:32 a.m.
And of course this court is allowed to decide a question on its own constitution by applying the federal constitution
impactiiiAnd of course this court is allowed to decide a question on its own constitution by applying the federal constitution
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:33 a.m.
Well, I’m not inclined to resolve or reach a broader state & fed’l constitutional question when the matter can be resolved on narrower grounds.
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:34 a.m.
Real
impactiiiWhen would an arrest memorandum ever be constitutional
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:37 a.m.
Anyways, back to this. One by fiat likely never could be, but if the Attorney General obtained warrants for, let’s say, several members of a criminal syndicate based on their criminality , rather than their mere membership therein, and ordered his subordinates to “apprehend” them, I wouldn’t want my order to be construed as restraining or prohibiting that… for obvious reasons.
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:38 a.m.
Courts are ordinarily reluctant to grant sweeping injunctions, especially against the government, as there is a not so remote possibility that legitimate and lawful conduct is ensnared by its breadth and reach.
AwesomeCourts are ordinarily reluctant to grant sweeping injunctions, especially against the government, as there is a not so remote possibility that legitimate and lawful conduct is ensn...
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:52 a.m.
You aren’t Clarence Thomas buddy
impactiiiObviously violative of the guarantee clause that requires separation of powers in all states
Awesome 2025-02-12 10:56 a.m.
Also, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States , 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois , 187 U.S. 71, 84 (1902)) (“The Court has held that the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the Federal Constitution is not mandatory on the States.”).
AwesomeAlso, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States , 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois , 1...
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:58 a.m.
Burger court?
impactiii 2025-02-12 10:58 a.m.
Opinion rejected
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:01 a.m.
I’ve seen some of the worst shit ever come out of that Court
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:01 a.m.
Like genuinely shitting out opinions(edited)
Singhski 2025-02-12 11:03 a.m.@impactiii so I suppose you say the same thing with Warren too?
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:05 a.m. 
Singhskiimpactiii 2025-02-12 11:06 a.m.
Well
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:06 a.m.
I’m not technically allowed to say that because they gave us things like Brown v. Board
AwesomeAlso, this is just profoundly incorrect, and yet still somehow a common misconception. See Whalen v. United States , 445 U.S. 684, 690 n.4 (1980) (citing Dreyer v. Illinois , 1...
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
Genuinely I'm curious how they came to that conclusion
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
What was the point of the guarantee clause then
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:16 a.m.
You can arm one branch of the government with all power, known and unknown—just do it at the state level!
impactiiiGenuinely I'm curious how they came to that conclusion
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:19 a.m.
Well, it’s been followed by every federal circuit, and the Supreme Court (to mention but one instance) reaffirmed it in 2010, in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection , 560 U.S. 702, 719 (2010) (opinion of Scalia, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ.).
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:19 a.m.
Justice Jusitce Alito
impactiiiJustice Jusitce Alito
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:20 a.m.
Justices..
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
The abbreviation “JJ.” following a list of justices' names stands for “Justice Justice"
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.
- Boston Law Review
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.@impactiii Now you're just trolling.
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:21 a.m.@impactiii Get the fuck out of here.
AwesomeWell, it’s been followed by every federal circuit, and the Supreme Court (to mention but one instance) reaffirmed it in 2010, in *Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept...
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:24 a.m.
Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay hate all of those motherfuckers
James Madison, in Federalist No. 39, defined a republic as a government “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 47
Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay hate all of those motherfuckers
impactiiiJames Madison, in Federalist No. 39, defined a republic as a government “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administere...
Awesome 2025-02-12 11:25 a.m.
We aren’t going to see it revisited at any point in the foreseeable future.
AwesomeWe aren’t going to see it revisited at any point in the foreseeable future.
impactiii 2025-02-12 11:53 a.m.
Can we appeal from the Mayflower District Court to the SCOTUS then
impactiii
Toby 2025-02-12 01:18 p.m.
Are you schizo?
impactiii 2025-02-12 01:19 p.m.@Awesome When will this case be wrapped up?
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:03 p.m.
"Upon learning of the court’s decision to strike down the memorandum, my office took immediate steps to ensure compliance with the court’s order by notifying all relevant law enforcement agencies and directing them to cease any enforcement actions related to the memorandum."
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1335741227651301501/1339167929740038176
@Awesome
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1335741227651301501/1339167929740038176
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:03 p.m.
Is this perjury
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:04 p.m.
2 days and 11 hours
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:04 p.m.
Is this perjury? @Awesome Can we do a poll in court-announcements if this is perjury or not?
impactiii 2025-02-12 04:05 p.m.
59 hours of immediate steps
impactiiiIs this perjury? @Awesome Can we do a poll in court-announcements if this is perjury or not?
Toby 2025-02-13 12:14 a.m.
Can you please act within court decorum please
TobyAre you schizo?
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:14 a.m.
Objection, medical privilege. Move to certify the question.
Toby 2025-02-13 12:15 a.m.
I was about to say something then I remembered I asked you to act within court decorum, so I can't say it
impactiiiObjection, medical privilege. Move to certify the question.
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
Alright, enough. You are to act with candour in these proceedings.
AwesomeAlright, enough. You are to act with candour in these proceedings.
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
I'm a filing another motion
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:17 a.m.
I'm filing
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I will have it in within the hour
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
Ok.. What motion, in particular?
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I feel like we should all be here when it happens
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
I feel like we all need to experience it
Toby 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
What does that even mean
impactiiiI feel like we all need to experience it
Awesome 2025-02-13 12:18 a.m.
Ok…
impactiii 2025-02-13 12:43 a.m.PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR OR REFER DEFENDANT SINGHSKI FOR PERJURY
CC:@Awesome @Toby @singhski
151.51 KB
impactiiiAwesome 2025-02-13 10:53 a.m.
I harbor doubts that it could even be perjury, as for it to be perjury, it would have to be him falsely swearing to something material.(edited)
Awesome 2025-02-13 10:55 a.m.
The stuff I’ve highlighted is what he was ordered to submit; anything outside of that is arguably immaterial, and thus cannot constitute perjury.
Awesome 2025-02-13 11:11 a.m.
“A fact is ‘material’ if it has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’” United States v. McLaughlin , 386 F.3d 547, 553 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)).(edited)
Awesome“A fact is ‘material’ if it has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’” *United State...(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:35 a.m.
Whether or not he took immediate steps was a disputed fact in this case
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:35 a.m.
You had to decide whether or not he did in the motion for contempt
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
And I tried to get an evidentiary ruling on it
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
But you already ruled that he did not take immediate steps
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:36 a.m.
And he said that as well
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
But now we have conflicting facts
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
Whether he took 59 hours or “immediate steps”
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
Cannot be both ways
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:37 a.m.
And #3 was relevant to the TRO(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-13 11:38 a.m.
Where you asked him to notify all of his officers
impactiiiYou had to decide whether or not he did in the motion for contempt
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:42 p.m.
But I already ruled on the motion, and.. denied it in that respect..
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:42 p.m.
So, like, how is it material?
AwesomeSo, like, how is it material?
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
Because it’s a fact of this case
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
It’s literally a concrete fact that would have to be decided in this case had he not decided he would not contest
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:43 p.m.
But it’s not relevant to the inquiry, and is a fact that I’ve already ruled on — it’s not in dispute.(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Okay whatever
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Just put the ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the bag
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:44 p.m.
Bro
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
We were going to rely on that fact at trial
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Whatever am I right
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Hahahaha
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
Thank you
impactiiiJust put the ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the bag
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:45 p.m.
.
impactiii.
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:55 p.m.
I’m going to grant summary judgment since the facts are undisputed. I have yet to write my precise ruling, though.
Awesome 2025-02-13 02:55 p.m.
so, like, again, there’s not going to be a trial.
impactiii 2025-02-13 02:57 p.m.
Word
impactiii 2025-02-14 01:53 p.m.
I ask leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs seeing as this case is resolved. @Toby
impactiiiI ask leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs seeing as this case is resolved. @Toby
Awesome 2025-02-15 08:22 p.m.
Denied.
Awesome 2025-02-15 08:23 p.m.
The case is not “resolved,” as I have yet to issue my ruling.
Toby used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-20 08:02 p.m. @Toby has added @impactiii to the case channel.
Case Modified
impactiii 2025-02-20 08:02 p.m.@Awesome Ruling when?
impactiiiAwesome 2025-02-20 08:05 p.m.
Likely sometime tomorrow or the day after.(edited)
impactiii 2025-02-22 10:52 a.m.@Awesome Today?
impactiiiAwesome 2025-02-23 11:10 a.m.
Apologies, some IRL stuff came up so this will be delayed by 1-2 days (from now, that is).
Awesome 2025-03-01 02:12 a.m.@impactiii @singhski Just so y’all are in the loop, I’ve got a rather nasty ear infection (the IRL stuff was a medical appt), so this will likely be delayed by an additional few days.
AwesomeSinghski 2025-03-01 01:07 p.m.
Get well soon
SinghskiGet well soon
Awesome 2025-03-01 01:09 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-03-03 04:27 p.m.@Awesome I have to withdraw as counsel as I am now a judge. Thank yuo
meowiittenAwesome 2025-03-05 08:01 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.@Awesome @singhski @meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.
Since we’re all judges we should rule on this together
meowiitten 2025-03-15 02:07 a.m.
Agree to disagree
meowiittenAgree to disagree
Awesome 2025-03-16 12:48 p.m.
I'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
AwesomeI'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten 2025-03-24 08:32 p.m.
Today?
AwesomeI'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten 2025-03-25 06:21 p.m.
Today?
AwesomeI'll get this done later. It's not my priority atm.
meowiitten 2025-03-26 06:13 p.m.
Today?
meowiittenToday?
Awesome 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
Can you stop? This is not a priority. Once I finish w/ <#1333672198132465745> , this will be.
Awesome 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
I’ve been busy all week w/ Uni.
AwesomeCan you stop? This is not a priority. Once I finish w/ <#1333672198132465745> , this will be.
meowiitten 2025-03-26 06:53 p.m.
Today?
meowiittenToday?
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:10 p.m.
Can you stop? Like right now.
SinghskiCan you stop? Like right now.
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
What’s wrong with you?
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
Fucking fucking mother fucking stop.
meowiitten 2025-04-13 12:16 p.m.
This shit (ts).
meowiittenFucking fucking mother fucking stop.
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:45 p.m.
What the frick? Do I need to report you to the International Frick Clique?
Singhski 2025-04-13 12:45 p.m.
Trust me I friggin shitting will.
Awesome 2025-05-18 12:02 a.m.
The opinion for this case is going to be out soon-ish. Apologies for the delay; this hasn’t been the priority.
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:22 a.m.@Awesome Your Honor, how long will this take?
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:23 a.m.
The Department of Justice has patiently been waiting for you to render a final order.
Singhski 2025-05-26 10:23 a.m.
So is Rochonto, in whatever blacksite they are keeping him in
SinghskiSo is Rochonto, in whatever blacksite they are keeping him in
Awesome 2025-05-26 12:40 p.m.
Apologies for the delay, this should be done by this week (or early next week at the latest).
AwesomeApologies for the delay, this should be done by this week (or early next week at the latest).
meowiitten 2025-05-28 04:00 p.m.
SIR.
meowiittenSIR.
Awesome 2025-05-28 04:08 p.m.1
The week hasn’t even ended?
1
Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-06-11 08:22 p.m.
2 weeks has passed
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:56 p.m.@Awesome Please.
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.@Awesome Please zir.
Singhski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.@Awesome I think I pinged the wrong account
meowiittenSinghski 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.
You pinged the wrong account
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:57 p.m.@Zamenoff651
meowiittenSinghski 2025-06-17 06:58 p.m.1
Did you mean to ping @Awesome ?
1meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:59 p.m.
No
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:59 p.m.
Wrong account
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:41 p.m.@Awesome SIR!
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:34 p.m.
@AwesomePIays Please. Sir.
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:34 p.m.@singhski
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:35 p.m.
Cross motion for summary judg Plz
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:35 p.m.
Motion for leave to file late brief
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.@singhski
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
Who is et al again
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
Let me read the complaint again.
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:30 p.m.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD
DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS
DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS
meowiitten 2025-06-30 08:00 p.m.@Awesome Sir
meowiittenAwesome 2025-06-30 08:16 p.m.
And this will be out by Monday, EST.
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:28 a.m.@Awesome Sir
meowiittenAwesome 2025-07-13 03:28 a.m.
Yea, that other opinion took longer than I thought it would, so the deadlines for everything have been shifted forward a couple of days.
AwesomeYea, that other opinion took longer than I thought it would, so the deadlines for everything have been shifted forward a couple of days.
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
Alright well
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.
Notice of supplemental authority
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.<#1383481224835891312>
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:29 a.m.<#1387959817687269537>
meowiitten 2025-07-17 08:08 p.m.@Awesome SIR!
meowiitten 2025-07-19 04:46 p.m.@Awesome SIR
meowiitten 2025-07-20 01:57 a.m.@singhski ...
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:50 p.m.@Awesome SIR
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:50 p.m.@Awesome SIR
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-07-23 04:56 p.m.
I would reassign this but it seems too far in
UserMessage could not be loaded.
Awesome 2025-07-24 06:35 a.m.
shah_khaled ᴘᴄI would reassign this but it seems too far in
Awesome 2025-07-24 06:35 a.m.
1
apologies, this has been set back by a myriad of delays & the fact that it was backlogged for ages (as a result of those delays)
1Awesome 2025-07-27 09:40 a.m.
Ok, as a very quick (albeit belated update), I had an assignment which I had to wrap up tonight, so it’ll be done tomorrow morning/afternoon, which will coincide with me replacing my faulty HDMI cord.
Singhski 2025-07-29 07:45 a.m.
Hello guys, I'm so sorry. New update, I was planning to finish the assignment but my irritable bowel syndrome decided to act up all over my faulty HDMI cord and now it isn't working at all. 
meowiitten 2025-07-29 12:05 p.m.@Awesome
meowiitten 2025-08-11 05:02 p.m.@Awesome SIR
meowiittenSinghski 2025-08-12 06:30 p.m.
Sorry about that, I swallowed my HDMI cord during a meltdown. It'll be done tomorrow morning/afternoon.
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 10:24 a.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Chambers of Judge Nicklaus_s
Nicklaus used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 12:18 p.m. @Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Case Modified
Nicklaus used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-13 12:18 p.m. @Nicklaus has added @dero to the case channel.
Case Modified
meowiitten 2025-08-13 01:33 p.m.
Fuck this case
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 03:11 p.m.@meowiitten @singhski @dero I am recusing because I served as Solicitor General of the State of Mayflower or otherwise served in the Department of Justice during the pendency of this case and gave advice to Attorney General Singhski about this case.
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 03:11 p.m.@krm
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 05:30 p.m.@Prothonotary's Office reassign
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-08-13 05:32 p.m.
Reasisgned to @singhski
shah_khaled ᴘᴄReasisgned to @singhski
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:32 p.m.
LOL?
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
deal with it.
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
I am recusing because I am a party to this case.
Singhski 2025-08-13 05:33 p.m.
also because my hdmi cable broke
SinghskiI am recusing because I am a party to this case.
Nicklaus 2025-08-13 07:32 p.m.
actually ur not anymore bahahahahah
Nicklaus used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-16 09:13 p.m. @Nicklaus has added @Toby to the case channel.
Case Modified
Nicklaus 2025-08-21 11:38 p.m.@Xerxy filed in February btw
Nicklaus 2025-08-21 11:38 p.m.
reassign
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.@Prothonotary's Office
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
Ok
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
reassigned to judge @meowiitten
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
No
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:56 p.m.
He’s a party
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Oh
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Nick
Singhski
Sado
are parties
Singhski
Sado
are parties
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
reassigned to judge @who
NicklausNick Singhski Sado are parties
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Can you move the channel to his category
Xerxy 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
I’m not on pc rn
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:57 p.m.
Yes
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:57 p.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Chambers of Judge GrandpaGobiesNicklaus used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:58 p.m. @Nicklaus has added @dero to the case channel.
Case Modified
Nicklaus used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-23 08:58 p.m. @Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Case Modified
Nicklaus 2025-08-23 08:58 p.m.@who
who 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
Explain to me how this case is 6 months old and not done yet
who 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.@dero @meowiitten (idk if you’re apart of this)
whomeowiitten 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
Not anymore
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:15 p.m.
So basically
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
He said he granted summary judgment in our favor but he never did an opinion
who 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
Ok link me the motion for summary judgement he accepted and the other party’s response
who 2025-08-23 09:16 p.m.
I will rule @meowiitten
impactiiimeowiitten 2025-08-23 09:17 p.m.
.
AwesomeI’m going to grant summary judgment since the facts are undisputed. I have yet to write my precise ruling, though.
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:17 p.m.
.
who 2025-08-23 09:18 p.m.
So the case is about a law that lets the AG declare a criminal organization and order arrests without warrant ?
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:18 p.m.
Uhhh something like that?
meowiitten 2025-08-23 09:19 p.m.
Idk you need to go read the complaint
who 2025-08-23 09:19 p.m.
Ok
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.@rochonto3 @singhski Can we make a settlement agreement :/
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.
:/
meowiitten 2025-09-03 12:22 a.m.
:/
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:06 p.m.@meowiitten @singhski
It isORDERED that each party has twenty-four (24) hours of the entry of this Order to file any motion to recuse or substitute the Court for cause, or to indicate that they do not intend to file any such motion. This case will be stayed until then. Signed by District Judge Brenda Popplewell (Entered: 09/21/2025).(edited)
It is
Brenda used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-20 08:08 p.m. @Brenda has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Case Modified
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.@meowiitten Given that you're now... suing your own office, will you be appointing Special Counsel or handling the matter in propria persona.
meowiitten 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
Moot
meowiitten 2025-09-20 08:08 p.m.
That or frankly I mean I don't care about this case
Brenda 2025-09-20 08:11 p.m.@Prothonotary's Office
It isORDERED that this case is dismisssed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case file. Signed by District Judge Popplewell (Entered: 09/21/2025).(edited)
It is
krabz used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1424124728565567508 Successfully created transcript.
clerkFlow Bot2025-10-04 04:03 p.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Volume XIIExported 442 messages